I was in the UCB Optom School's library the other day and noticed two
copies of Dr. Ritch's '89 edition of 'The Glaucomas' but didn't see
the '96 edition.  I asked the librarian about it.  She couldn't find
anything on it.  While I was looking up other things, she finally
pointed out to me that the '96 edition was shelved under Ophthalmology
in general, rather than under Glaucoma, as the older edition is.  I
didn't see any Library of Congress keywords in the front of the '96
book set, as maybe an explanation for the difference in "taxonomy".
Apparently somebody thought the new volumes covered too great a ground
to be stuck in the glaucoma pigeonhole.  Is that the reason?  In such
cases, it would seem that libraries ought to have hypertext links of
some sort on their shelves.  

But actually, I think libraries (which have never impressed me with
their efficiency) ought to all be shut down as hard-copy repositories
and put online instead.  Bill Stacy, who posts to sci.med.vision, I'm
sure, wouldn't object to that.  ;-)  I don't mean to set out the UCBSO
Library as a poor library as such establishments go, however.  I think
it is one of the best ones and that the staff is much better than that
of most.

Ray